News organizations have not evolved as much as they have devolved over the last sixty years. Journalism ethics have suffered the greatest. The priority in news organizations has shifted from high journalistic standards to gaining market share. The news anchor or primary news host now use the reporter as hu’s* news source.

CNN news anchor interview CNN reporter Matt Rivers

How Did We Get Here?

Originally, the news reporter job was to gather the facts, confirm the facts, and organize the facts into a story. The myth of Superman’s girlfriend getting the scoop and landing a Page One, Pulitzer Prize article wasn’t how it really happened.

Good journalism was the verification of the facts, careful research, and exposing lies. In the end, the reporter’s name was the byline, not the storyline. Reporters needed the attention to detail of an accountant, the interrogation skill of a great attorney, the ethics of a great judge, and the knowledge of a college professor, in addition to the ability to write a compelling story.

But when investors began buying up news organizations, money became the priority over journalism standards. Advancement was based who could attract a bigger audience. Women were brought into the newsroom, but the motivation was ratings, not equality. Money flowed to those that could produce shock and awe. The young, idealistic journalism graduate discovered that a reporter was underpaid, overworked, and disrespected.

And while the journalism standards fell, the news source wall went up. Organizations created ‘public relations’ experts to ‘control the message.’ Now a reporter is the person between the news organization looking for ratings and the news source that wants to be a shining star.

Corporate Public Relations Mastery of Orwellian Doublespeak

Not every company believes in lying to the public, but it does seem the bigger they are, the less responsive they are willing to be. The most recent major incident is Facebook’s initial response to the data of 50 million users being collected by conservatives connected to the Donald Trump campaign.

After the story broke on Saturday 17 March, Facebook ran silent for days before issuing any response. Journalists that attempted to obtain information and/or a response were ignored. Major headlines were running about the data breach and Facebook was on lockdown.

Corporate PR has made the company the least likely source of accurate, reliable, and/or truthful information. So now the reporter digs up whatever information they can and becomes the ‘expert.’ The news anchor often interviews the reporter as the sole news source because no one else will talk.

The problem with this is that the reporter can’t speak with authority. They are not privy to the inside information so they can only offer hu’s opinion. That changes journalism into gossip and guessing. No one can be sure of anything because no one knows the truth. That leaves it up to the individual to accept what they want to hear and reject what they don’t want to hear. That is never good for a democracy.

The Reno Gazette-Journal (RGJ) recently decided to lock themselves behind a wall and it will cost you at least $12/month to see what they have hidden. Does anyone else see the problem with this business model?

Allow me to reconstruct the history of news media in America to understand why this is a death sentence to the RGJ.

In the 1800’s newspapers owned the information world

1700-1900In the 1700’s, newspapers became the source of community news. These newspapers often portrayed a political view, but were THE source of information in a society where travel was limited and information scarce. Writers and editors often became key figures in the social and political structure as the gatekeepers of what would be printed.

Radio was faster, but newspapers were corporeal

1900’sThe invention of radio and television gave new options to the public on how they accessed news. The radio offered broadcast news that reached more people faster; however, newspapers remained the source of news because it existed in corporeal form. News transmitted on radio waves disappeared if a person wasn’t in front of the radio during the broadcast. Newspapers; however, almost always gave more a more in-depth account of the events.

Television came shortly after radio and added the exciting features of seeing the reporter and moving images of events; however, newspapers continued to be the best source of significant events.

CNN was to newspapers what Wal-Mart was to Mom & Pop stores

1980CNN was the first real threat to newspapers. It offered news 24/7/365 and it often relayed events in progress. People no longer had to wait for a newspaper’s version that would come the next day. The newspaper still had the corporeal advantage because CNN would eventually move on to the other news while newspapers could be read anytime. Newspapers also still gave more in-depth reporting on local news issues.

1995It wasn’t until the creation of the Internet that newspapers faced a challenge that would threaten their existence. The public use of the Internet stripped newspapers of almost every advantage they held. News was not only reported, it was discussed and people reacted in real-time. With the development of the Google search engine topics could be accessed and researched at any time anywhere there was Internet access. The news was no longer filtered and limited to what an editor thought people should know, but rather raw information reached individuals who made their own decisions on what was significant to them.

Reporters who spent years in college and thousands of dollars in tuition and books now found themselves competing against bloggers who had no editors to please. Reporters might get the story and accurately report it to their community but in a real-time world their information was just following up to what people already knew. Newspapers have adapted by presenting an online version of the information that will be in the next day’s paper and that has helped writers compete and be read; however, investors want profit and that is the heart of the dilemma.

The Reno Gazette-Journal has decided that they will create demand and increase revenue by limiting access. That is a rational position to take if you have a product that has significant value and demand, but newspapers and their value appeals to a diminishing demographic. Older white males are dying off at an incredibly rapid pace and newspapers have little demand or value to younger, non-white, non-male demographics. How does RGJ expect to gain new readers by charging for access who have free access to local online news through three Reno television news station’s webpages?

There is another problem with RGJ’s decision that may impact the quality of writing. A writer for RGJ has to accept that their audience will be extremely limited. Blogs will exist for decades and are be searchable to anyone in the world. An RGJ reporters work is locked away behind a wall forever. Who wants to dedicate their life to writing and have it unread? Over time writers will have to decide how much damage RGJ is doing to their career by locking their work behind a pay wall. Once the good writers are gone, what value will the Reno Gazette-Journal have to anyone, paying or otherwise?

We endured relentless political ads on television and radio, but Nevada didn’t hit the jackpot in campaign dollars flowing into the State from the Governor’s race. Despite the fact that almost $3.8 million dollars was spent by the Sandoval for Governor Campaign in the months leading up to the election, 80% of the money was payable to recipients outside the State. Rory Reid’s campaign also spent a significant portion of its money to out-of-state firms with MSR Media Strategies, LLC in Fairfax, Virginia netting almost $2.8 million from the Reid campaign.

In a detailed review of Governor-Elect Sandoval’s campaign reports, 63% ($2.4 million) of campaign expenses were made payable to Strategic Media Services, inc. in Washington, D.C. for advertising. While some may argue that money spent for advertising comes back to the State in the form of purchased television and radio air time and newspaper ads, one Nevada media consultant pointed out that most media outlets in Nevada are owned by out-of-state media corporations, so political ads that ran on many local stations were payable to non-Nevada interests. The one exception is the Intermountain West Communications Company that owns several television stations including in the western United States including KSNV-Las Vegas, KRNV-Reno, and KENV-Elko.

David Neal, President of Strategic Media Services, inc. (Sandoval’s leading campaign expenditure) and Kyle Osterhout, Partner of MSR Media Strategies, LLC (Rory Reid’s leading campaign expenditure) were not immediately available; however, two media experts with campaign related experience said that the standard fee for media agencies is 15% of the advertising purchase. In some cases a campaign may negotiate rebates from the media agency based on volume of business; however services such as the production of the ad are typically not included in the 15% fee.

The Las Vegas area did benefit from 19% (over $720,000) of the campaign funds with over $400,000 paid to political and media consultants. Almost half a million dollars went to the three Las Vegas firms of October, Inc., Autumn Productions, and Autumn EMedia. The latter two are subsidiaries of November, Inc.

The Reno, Lake Tahoe, and Carson Valley garnered only 1 percent (less than $30,000) from the Governor-Elect’s campaign and rural Nevada received less than $10,000.

On a late October morning a Wal-Mart employee was ‘disgruntled’ and he decides it’s time to take action. He smuggles a gun into the store and buys ammunition for it in the Sporting Goods department. He then goes to the restroom where he hides in the handicapped stall mulling his decision. He makes a final commitment to confront his bosses and leaves the restroom, straight toward the manager’s office. Once there he confronts the manager, the one he likes, and, at gunpoint, orders him to call two other managers to the office. When they arrive they find an angry man with a gun. At some point the three managers make a run for it and all three are shot. All three live, but their lives will never be the same.

Last week’s shooting of three managers in a Wal-Mart in Reno (Nevada, USA) should not be surprising in a State that has the worst crime rate in the United States. Nevada has been ranked as the Most Dangerous State for the last four years (2006-09) by Morgan Quitno’s (morganquitno.com) annual crime rate report.

Nevada’s Crime Story

Nevada ranks #1 in women being killed by men (1)

Nevada ranks #1 in stolen cars per capita (2)

Nevada ranks #1 in robbery per capita (2)

Nevada ranks in the top 10 for assaults per capita for the last 4 years (3)

Nevada ranks in the top 10 for forcible rape per capita for the last 4 years (3)

What is a surprise is the deafening silence about the State’s notorious ranking by local media. The top 50 hits of a Google search of ‘Nevada High Crime Rate News Media’ offer no mention of the issue among the State’s primary television and print media resources. It also was not an issue discussed in most of the major political contests this year despite the fact that Nevada’s #1 status in unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies were all fodder for candidate mud-slinging.

It should be noted that Nevada’s crime rankings are not an artifact of the 2007-09 Recession. The State has been a leader in crime independent of the economic environment. It is unknown if Nevada’s out of control crime issues are effecting tourism because for over half a decade the State has experienced a steady decline in gaming revenues because of increased competition due to Indian gaming in California and other States. Any impact of Nevada’s high crime reputation would be masked by the larger trend; however, as there seems to be little awareness of the State’s crime issues, it is unlikely that it has had an impact…yet.

Nevada’s gaming industry would likely suffer more revenue losses if the crime woes were widely publicized and lower gaming revenues would have a trickle down effect on newspaper and television advertising revenue but, there is no evidence that the local media intentionally avoids the subject to risk offending their advertisers. Gaming also plays a significant role in Nevada politics but, there is no evidence that politicians avoid discussing the issue for fear of offending potential major contributors to their campaigns.

However, the lack of discussion seems to only be feeding the problem. If any effort is being made to turn around Nevada’s position as the Most Dangerous State it is being done without fanfare ….and without success.

Tuesday’s vote put the Republican Party back in charge of the House and significantly reduced the Democratic majority in the Senate. The polls prior to Tuesday had already signaled that the Democrats would face near historic losses and that news brought out the vultures (hawks is too nice a metaphor). A full-page ad in USA Todayby Let Freedom Ring used the opportunity of a Democratic blood-bath to promote their fear-mongering agenda.

The unknown author(s) titled the ad with: “When will President Obama Accept Reality?” They use the recent incident of two printer bombs (not to be mistaken with any products sold by Hewlett-Packard) addressed to synagogues in Chicago to argue that we “..clearly remain under attack.”

The ad proclaims that they:

…will seek out candidates that a not afraid to praise and defend America. We will elect those who are not afraid to put a strong America first.

Who is the terrorist?

Clearly the fact that we did not respond with a nuclear bomb in Yemen last weekend has offended these people. I say these people because they seem to wish to remain unknown. Not only do they avoid listing any names in the advertisement, their website is absent of any responsible party. As typical with this type of propaganda, the people behind this effort don’t stand behind the statements. The anonymous statements have the same value to our country as gang graffiti on a dumpster.

However, this ad is a big win… for those who are responsible for shipping the printer bombs from Yemen last week. A handful of criminals who wanted to make a name for themselves could not hope for a better result from two failed bombs that never came close to a target. They got a full-page ad in USA Today and they didn’t have to pay a penny for it. They are now the toast of every other criminal out there who wishes people would pay attention to them.

Who is the real terrorist? The nameless person who made the bomb, or the nameless people who try to take an incident and use it to promote fear for their political agenda?

This week Starbucks continued to add value to its stores and more Re-Imagining seems to be in the forecast. A few months ago Starbucks did the smart move of offering free WiFi for everyone (see article below) and on Wednesday they took it one step farther with a Digital Starbucks that features free web content if you sign on to their WiFi service while you’re in the store.

Now when you use the free WiFi service in any Starbucksyou can also read a digital version of the day’s Wall Street Journal, New York Times, or the USA Today. The New York Times requires software download of a reader, but the USA Today loads up its own reader and retains the exact look of the paper copy. The site also includes Yahoo! news and GOOD content.

In addition to news, the Digital Starbucks offers access to a selection of entertainment, wellness, business/career, and local online resources. There is also a page to access most of the functions found on the Starbucks website. It seems apparent that Starbucks has teamed with AT&T, the WSJ, NYT, USA Today, and several others to offer this value-added service. Recently all Starbucks stores received new labeled newspaper stands with the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and USA Today in the top three shelves with the local paper given the bottom shelf. In my October tour of stores in Houston, Boston, Denver, and Reno I have seen more papers sold out than I have ever seen at a Starbucks store. Obviously the collaboration is a win-win.

A screen shot of the DG Wellness page

While some information has been sent out regarding the new online features most people have not caught on to the major remake of the log-in page and the new free media resources. That will change over time and I expect Starbucks will see a positive increase in store traffic as customers become aware of what they can access for free at their local store. I have already noticed high occupancy of the key ‘power’ tables (tables next to a power outlet) in almost every store I’ve visited since the free WiFi service started on July 1st.

Starbucks After Hours The value-added virtual Starbucks is small change compared to what may be coming to some Starbucks locations. As reported in this Monday’s USA Today, the company has been testing wine and beer service at a Seattle location. The three-month remodel of a standard store resulted in a cafe-type look and feel, moving away from the glorified fast food feel of most coffee houses. The move is designed to generate more late day revenue when coffee sales die down. There is little doubt that local bars may find a Starbucks too much to compete with as it creates a middle ground for those like getting out in the evening, but seek a relaxed atmosphere free of loud music and single men on the hunt.

While I remained concerned that Starbucks is allowing accountants have too much say in store operations, I have to congratulate them on bringing value-added service and innovative ideas into the forefront. The winner is the customer … the only person that matters.

The third quarter 2010 demographics of Social Media users according to Google’s Adplanner services has a few surprises. Facebook actually dropped from 550 to 540 million users in the third quarter, and Facebook users over age 54 dropped from 16% to 10% in the last six months. Based on the data from the 2nd and 3rd quarters there is a significant slowing in the growth of the major Social Media tools.

Among the numbers are the interesting age group distributions of each of the networking sites. The data gives important clues of what each site is being used for in addition to who is using it.

Facebook’s Fire Cools
No one can dispute Facebook’s impact on the world. It is BIG, and with millions of posts and interactions each day, the influence of its users is the envy of every marketing professional. Traditional media professional and other old people will be tempted to look at the 3rd quarter data and declare that the Social Media ‘fad’ is over and on the decline. That would be a statement of ignorance.

Facebook 3rdQ 2010 DAILY visits

Facebook’s growth could not continue indefinitely and its amazing growth in users from 2008 to the start of 2010 was being fueled by a viral exploration of a new media that allowed people to connect in a way they never had before. Now that exploration has calmed and I believe we are seeing the coming of age of Social Media.

The drop of 10 million users during the third quarter is only significant in that it shows a leveling off of the growth. The average time on the site is over 23 minutes, which is much longer than the other three major U.S. Social Media tools (MySpace 14:40 mins., Twitter 13:10 mins., LinkedIn 9:50 mins.) That is important as more time spent means more interaction and more influence by users and advertisers.

Facebook reaches almost 57% of the people in the United States (35% worldwide) which is a staggering statistic. If USA Today could reach 57% of Americans (without giving the newspaper away to every hotel guest) and know that the readers were spending over 23 minutes looking at their paper they would probably be the only newspaper in the United States… and mega rich. As of March 2010, USA Today has a circulation of only 1.8 million compared to Facebook’s over 65 million visitors (based on cookies.)

3rdQ Facebook Users by Age

1stQ Facebook Users by Age

One statistic that keeps bouncing around in the Social Media world is that “women over 55 is the fastest growing group of Facebook users.” That it is old data. While the over 55 group had climbed to 16% at the end of March 2010, it is now the fastest shrinking age group and Facebook users under 18 years old have been the fastest growing group during the last six months.

Finally, 57% of the Facebook users are women, which is about the same as six months ago. That seems to confirm that Facebook is about ‘social’ networking and making personal connections. Facebook continues to be the place where buying decisions are influenced through small group interactions. Business and Marketing people will find that if they try to manipulate these discussions it will eventually backfire on them. Facebook is where business should LISTEN, not talk.

Twitter 3rdQ 2010 DAILY visits

Twitter Continues to Pause
The biggest surprise in the 3rd Quarter with Twitter was that it did not break the 100 million user mark. At the end of the 2nd Quarter it was at 96 million users, which was up by 16 million from the 1st Quarter. However, Twitter only grew by 2 million and now stands at 98 million users.

Twitter’s daily visits have leveled off for the last six months, and some might see this as an ominous sign for the hyper-fast post Social Media tool; however, this is deceiving as many Twitter users, (like myself,) don’t go to the Twitter site to use the tool, but rather use an application, like TweetDeck, to interact on the site. Thus the visit count would not be recorded as a site visit.

Twitter’s lack of significant growth in the number of users may be do to a continued lack of understanding of the value of the Tweet world and a period of constant ‘Fail Whales’ in the 2nd Quarter and early 3rd Quarter. The service has seemed to address the major problems in system overloads, but lately has had a return of a few service interruptions in the past few weeks. Obviously, if Twitter continues to have problems it won’t be able to survive in an environment where reliability is oxygen to users.

As for the lack of understanding of the value of Twitter, the service will struggle to grow until people can learn that the impact of Twitter is not in the posts, but the conversations and the URL links to other blogs and webpages. Twitter is like Headline News for new ideas and concepts. Often posts reveal a new approach or cutting-edge information that won’t be in the traditional public arena for months. That is why I still see Twitter growing if they can rid themselves of service interruptions.

3rdQ 2010 Twitter users by Age

1stQ 2010 Twitter users by Age

One interesting development in the latest data is the shift in the age demographics. Twitter seems to have made a shift to younger adults. The 18-34 age group is up by 16%, while the 35-64 age group is down by 9% from six months ago. Also, teenagers (under 18) have dropped by 6% since the 1st quarter and now make up only 4% of all Twitter users. The apparent dislike for Twitter among teenagers is a clear age defining characteristic. I have had two separate teenagers say to me “You’re not on Twitter, are you!?”

Apparently Twitter gives you cooties. Who knew?

MySpace Back From the Brink?I have predicted the end of MySpace for sometime, but in the 3rd quarter it did something bizarre … it gained users. It had dropped 14 million users from the 1st to the 2nd quarter and then it gained one million users back in the 3rd quarter. MySpace now stands at 67 million users. Not earth-shaking, but certainly noteworthy. LinkedIn would sacrifice several interns to have that many users. MySpace also has more women. Female users consist of 64% of the MySpace population.

MySpace 3rdQ 2010 DAILY visits

The reason? Well, no other major Social Media tool lets you search by gender … and age … and height … and race … and body type … and sexual orientation … are you getting the picture? MySpace is a social dating site as much as anything else and lonely people make up a lot of our world’s population. So maybe MySpace has found its niche as a romance network and that will stop the freefall of the past two quarters.

3Q 2010 MySpace users by Age

3rdQ 2010 MySpace users by Age

Yes, there are more teenagers on this site than most (14%), but 63% of the users are between 18 and 44 years old. One caveat. MySpace has limited the ‘find-a-friend’ search function to give the results of people age 18 and over. That is a smart move to protect minors; however, some teenagers have simply listed themselves as an age of 18 or older to circumvent the limitation. I caught a few teenagers that list themselves as 19, but on their main page description they indicate their real age. This is likely why the number of ‘under 18’ users have dropped from 34% to 14% in six months.

LinkedIn Drifting in Niche
The 3rd quarter statistics show that despite millions of people looking work, the business person to business person website of LinkedIn is not growing. It is at 41 million, which is actually higher than the end of 2nd quarter, but the same as the end of the 1st quarter.

LinkedIn 3rdQ DAILY visits

Like MySpace, LinkedIn has found its niche. Essentially, LinkedIn is a business-oriented website that provides a job exchange service. Most users are using the networking website as their digital résumé in order to attract job offers. In the Tom Peters ‘Re-Imagine’ business world where branding is a key element of survival, LinkedIn is Mecca for self-promotion.

Unfortunately, LinkedIn is not as successful as Facebook and Twitter in two-way interaction. Both of those Social Media tools do not have as much as of an ‘agenda’ by individual users as LinkedIn. Users of the business-oriented network seem to spend more time professing what they know and don’t spend as much time listening to others. This is the traditional media model of one-way communication, which is the style of communication that Social Media has displaced. For some, the self-promotion run amuck style of some LinkedIn users is a turn off that may hurt the site in the long run.

3Q 2010 LinkedIn user by Age

1stQ 2010 LinkedIn users by Age

It will be interesting to see how LinkedIn will fare as the business-caused Recession of 2007-09 eases and people are employed again. LinkedIn could be a key to a sudden labor shortage in 2012 as those companies with the best opportunities will be able to target and recruit candidates through LinkedIn, leaving other employers to either compete or settle for what’s left over.

Age and gender on LinkedIn reinforce the business-world orientation as more males (57%) are users and the distribution of the age groups reflects the working world. Interestingly, while LinkedIn still has more users over 54 years old (15%), this is 7% drop from the 1st quarter. That is offset by an 8% jump of the 24-34 year old users in the last six months.

4th Quarter Predictions?I believe we are seeing a refinement of each of the big four Social Media tools. Facebook has become the social sharing network, Twitter is the thought-provoking, learning network, MySpace is the social relationship network, and LinkedIn the branding and résumé network. The demographics are settling in to reinforce the existing nature of each of the networks. Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn will likely end 2010 about where they are now unless something viral either cause a rush of new users, or sends people running away. Twitter still has potential significant growth, but I don’t see that happening in the 4th quarter.

The volatility of the Social Media networks have made it difficult to understand what they will eventually represent in our world; however, now that there seems to be a calming of the major networks, the value and purpose is becoming clearer. That will allow the big four to lock in their market; however, it will also open the door for other networks to identify areas of opportunities and weakness. My prediction is that 2011 will be the entrenchment of the Social Media, followed by more competition by other networks seeking to improve or offer alternatives to the established services.

Recently I listened to a presentation on how to network to increase referrals of potential customers. The speaker made her living by teaching people how to do this, so there is no doubt she knew her subject. Personally, I agree that face-to-face networking skills are critical if you are going to be in business, especially if you have direct customer contact.

However, she quoted statistics from a 2002 study done by the Chamber of Commerce on referral effectiveness based on the method of contact. 2002. That is where she lost me.

How far back is 2002? In 2002, the Department of Justice announced it was going to investigate Enron, the UN Security Council froze the assets of Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, the Winter Olympics were held in Salt Lake City, Utah, The US Secretary of Energy declared Yucca Mountain, Nevada to be a suitable nuclear waste depository, the Space Shuttle Columbia completed a mission to update the Hubble Space Telescope…it’s last before it would be destroyed on re-entry from it’s next mission in 2003, the United States led coalition invaded Afghanistan, A Beautiful Mind won Best Picture, United Airlines and WorldCom filed for bankruptcy, Congress approved a resolution to go to war with Iraq, and President George W. Bush created the Department ofHomeland Security.

Columbia Space Shuttle Breakup in 2003

To some, it may seem like 2002 was yesterday, but when discussing a topic on how business referrals are made in 2010, quoting data from a single, eight year-old study makes me question the relevancy of any of the information provided. Note that the Internet was only eleven years old in 2002. The first Social Media site,Friendsterwas started in 2002. It wasn’t until 2003, that the more known sites of LinkedIn(May) and MySpace (August) were introduced. Facebook didn’t come on-line until February 2004, YouTube began a year later, and Twitter didn’t start until July 15, 2006.

The world of communication and business have changed dramatically in the past 36 months, let alone the changes over the past eight years. To discuss ‘networking’ from a perspective of the world in 2002 is to be inDenial*of the world of 2010. While ‘more experienced’ business people scoff at “these young people” and their Social Media, the reality is that referrals are being replaced by customer recommendations read off of blogs and other Internet sources. ‘Experienced’ business people can be angry, condescending, and ignorant all they want about the impact of Social Media on business…but it won’t change what has happened. Many people blame government regulation for business failures, but more businesses fail because of outdated business minds and practices than anything other cause and we are neck-deep in 2002 business thinking.

Face-to-face networking is important, but compare the number of face-to-face interactions/connections that a person can make in a day with the number of interactions/connections that can be made through blogs, LinkedIn, Facebook, and Twitter in an hour, and it becomes apparent that dismissing the power of Social Media makes a business person appear uninformed and outdated…sort of like a man who wears shorts, sandals…and black socks. That analogy may not make sense to some people, but then again, those people probably aren’t reading this blog…or any others.

It’s interesting to me how a song can make my day. Today I listened to a new song by Sara Bareilles called, ‘King of Anything‘ and it makes me smile every time I hear it. The song went on sale and the video was released late last month. I have downloaded the song (legally, on iTunes) and watched the video several times and I am enjoying both even though my song count is nearing an obsession.

Part of my attraction to the song is the music. It is an upbeat tune that sounds whimsical even though the lyrics are more serious. The chorus of the song is:

Sara Bareilles upcoming cd Kaleidoscope Heart

“Who cares if you disagree?
You are not me.
Who made you King of Anything?
So you dare tell me who to be,
who died and made you King of Anything?”

In Ms. Bareilles description of the song on Wikipedia, she says, “‘King of Anything’ is sort of a ‘f**k you’ song,” which it is, but I find a lot more in the song that relates to what Social Media has been saying to Traditional Media for over a decade.

Traditional Media (television, radio, books, magazines, etc.) have been ruled by editors and producers. They have sat on the throne of their own making deciding what we should see, hear, and read. Directors and editors have played the role of spoon-feeding the public the information they see fit and controlling the message. Usually their efforts have been an honorable attempt to provide information to the public, but more recently their have been efforts to intentionally influence the hearts and minds of the public with manipulated news through FOX news and via personalities like Rush Limbaugh.

Social Media has quietly become the force that has been giving each person the option to decide for themselves. We can talk, build groups of like-minded friends/followers, research, read first-hand reports, and explore the knowledge and experience of millions of other individuals. Social Media has challenged Traditional Media by asking, “Who made you King of anything?” The result has been a collapse of the house of cards that Traditional Media has built. Advertising and sales revenues have been dropping across the board as people now question the usefulness of media that is controlled by a few, and almost always behind the curve in information and trends.

Single released in May 2010

But back to the song. Sara Bareilles has a great line near the end where she says, “Let me hold your crown, babe.” While I fully understand the meaning (the middle finger is involved,) I’ll suggest that in Social Media we all hold the crown … and nobody needs to wear it to be heard. Traditional Media is dead. Long live the King!

Today is an amazing day! It may not seem that different to some people, but they just don’t realize what today signifies in the world of social and traditional media. Still, not clear? Think about this:

General Stanley McChrystal

Monday, June 21 – Reports surface that President Obama is angry about an article that would be appearing in Rolling Stones magazine. The article has several remarks by General Stanley McChrystal that were derogatory in nature about several people in the Administration. It is announced that McChrystal has been ordered to appear in person at the White House for Wednesday’s staff meeting, normally done via a secure video transmission.

Tuesday, June 22 – Thousands of articles, blogs, and news stories on television and radio discuss the article, the General and what should be done. All this happens while the General is in transit to Washington, D.C.

Wednesday, June 23 – General McChrystal reports to the White House, his resignation is accepted and it is announced that General David Petraeus will assume his command.

Thursday, June 24 – Continued discussion around the world about the article, the General, and President Obama’s solution to the issue. A Google search of the terms ‘McChrystal runaway general Obama’ nets 464,000 hits (many refer to another situation in October 2009) and the same terms appearing in blogs nets 92,000 hits.

So why does this make today an amazing day? The article that is the cause of bringing down the US Commander of the war in Afghanistan, the President making a swift, major change in his top military administrative staff, and has been the subject of discussion around the world for days…isn’t published in print until tomorrow.

But that isn’t even the best part! The best part is that no one is amazed by this bizarre situation. We have become so accustomed to the Internet trumping print media that no one sees the significance of the reaction to a news story superseding the news story actually being published.

What does it mean?
There is no better example of what has happened in the worlds of Social and Traditional Media than the events of this week. Print media used to ‘be’ the news but now print media is only a historical account of news. It is impossible for print media to have any impact on the world because it is too slow. Yes, television and radio were leaders in promoting the story; however, it was the Internet that provided the mechanism for so many ‘civilians’ to react to the story. The story was discussed in blogs, on Facebook, and on Twitter…all in real-time, not on a news cycle.

For the business person it is simple. If you think that Social Media is a waste of time and that it has no ROI (return on investment) for your company then know that your business could be dead before you even know why. If you are not plugged in and aware then you are flying blind in a world that quietly watches you and everything you do. The Google search will give your customer access to the good, the bad, and the ugly about you.

Think about this: a very powerful and successful military man was brought down by one reporter through some inappropriate remarks. In this situation he worked for a major publication, but it could have been a blogger with a video and the impact would have been the same. Social Media is not about how much time it will take out of your day, nor is it about the return on your investment. It is about your survival.

For the most part, the people in the traditional media (newspapers, magazines, TV, etc.) have seen the tidal wave of Social Media coming for years. They have typically adopted an if-you-can’t-beat-them-join-them strategy. The editors of our local paper have pushed their reporters (from here forward I’ll refer to them as journalists) to use Twitter and to blog in order to keep pace with the millions of reporters online that inform the world of everything from the cute thing their toddler did this week to the world event that everyone will be talking about in tomorrow’s newspaper.

Social Media has given voice to everyone and now journalists are but one voice among many, which is a problem if your living comes from your ability to be paid to have people read your stuff. In the days before blogs and Twitter, publishers and editors had the ability to control who could be heard and who could be silenced, but Social Media took away all their power and at least one publisher is mad as hell and he’s not going to take it anymore. He has declared war! He is going to sue!

The rationale for the suit is legitimate. A certain publisher (let’s call him, Elmer) at a certain Nevada newspaper (let’s call it The Old Conservative Times) has called out the demons (let’s call them lawyers…on second thought, let’s stick with demons) and is going after any website that uses copyrighted material of the The Old Conservative Times. What’s more, Elmer wants everyone else in the traditional media to get on the bandwagon with him.

I agree that anyone who steals an article from another website without crediting or revealing their original source of information is wrong. If possible, they should also link back to the original source. That’s the way Social Media works. We share information and let our friends, followers, readers know from where we got the information and, in turn, help publicize their work. Journalists, for the most part are professionals, and to steal their work and claim it as your own is unethical.

But that is not what this issue is really about for Elmer and the methods being used by The Old Conservative Times demonstrate that this is not an act of preserving the work of professional journalists. Elmer and his demons have decided to sue first and ask questions…never. Rather than contacting the offender and telling them to remove the copyrighted information, Elmer and his demons are going for the throat and filing suit with the intention of stealing the domain rights of the organization. That’s right, Elmer is using the nuclear option. No warning, just show up in court and turn over everything to Elmer. Freedom of Speech be damned, Elmer is here to tell us what we should think!

I should note that according to Elmer’s blogs he is a conservative. He hates President Barrack Obama and he takes any opportunity to spin a situation to cast a negative light on our President, or Democrats, or the elected government of the greatest nation in the history of the world. It seems about every third blog is pounding home the conservative dribble that proposes hate for our government, hate for our elected leaders, hate for the citizens of Mexico, ….you get the picture.

So Elmer is lashing out at Social Media, which is composed of people who want to be informed, but not by just those who hate, but those who can love, and everyone in between. Elmer wants traditional media to regain control of people’s hearts and minds and this Social Media thing is not acceptable! So Elmer and his demons are not seeking to correct the issue of copyright infringement, which could be done with a phone call or an email, they want to take away the voices of the Social Media, one domain at a time. Elmer also wants all his publishing friends to join him as he strikes a blow against freedom of speech for all and raises a flag on the land of the uninformed.

Hey Elmer, let me know how that works out for you…but don’t quote me, or I’ll sue you.

(Any use or reprint of part or all of this article is expressly ALLOWED for anyone,-except The Las Vegas Review-Journal, its staff, Stephens Media Group, or any affiliates, or any conservative-based organization that has made derogatory remarks about President Barack Obama, Senator Harry Reid, or Speaker Nancy Pelosi,-providing credit is given to Paul Kiser and, if possible, a link to this web address is included with the appearance.)

Twelve years ago the book, Who Moved My Cheese? by Spencer Johnson was published. It gave us fable about mice and men and how each handles change. In the book Johnson’s mice discover the cheese is all gone and immediately begin to search for a new supply of cheese; however, the when the humans discover the cheese is gone they assume someone has moved it and become angry because they saw themselves as victims of change.

I think we can apply this lesson to the field of Public Relations. Some are handling the massive changes in the field with acceptance and are adapting to the new paradigm, but some are taking a more human approach and seeing themselves as victims.

The new social media like Facebook, Twitter, and blogging are seen by some as evil, corrupt, and useless. Some business people feel it is unfair that people are making purchasing decisions from information they glean off the free social media sites when they are paying for advertisements to influence them. Some in the traditional media (newspapers, commercial TV, radio, etc.) may feel it is unfair that their sources of revenue are abandoning them for inexpensive promotional tools on the Internet. It’s all soooo unfair.

Someone moved Public Relations and it’s just not right!

I mention this because a few weeks ago a friend let me borrow a book called The Publicity Handbook by David R. Yale and Andrew J. Carothers. It was published by McGraw-Hill in May of 2001. In the nine years since it was published the field of Public Relations was moved. What we knew and understood about communication and media in 2001 has little to do with the world of communications and media of 2010, and the speed of change seems to be accelerating. Consider just a few of the changes since 2001:

Newspaper Circulation: Down 21% from 2001 (55.6 M) to 2009 (44.0 M) and newspapers lost over 10% in 2009 alone.

Newspapers Closed: 105…in the first seven months of 2009.

Social Media Sites: MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, etc. all started after 2001.

Blackberry Smart Phones: 2002

So what can a book on publicity have to say that has any value in today’s environment?

Quite a bit. The Publicity Handbook is a good foundation for anyone who is trying to learn the basics of the field of publicity and I it is a book I would recommend; however, for me, it gives a measure of how much has changed in the past nine years.